Minnesota Sports Forum

SameOldDrew wrote:

khans2k5 wrote:

SameOldDrew wrote:

thedoper wrote:Draft picks should all be about talent. If Tatum falls he is that guy. Otherwise we take Monk or DSJ. Positional fit and intanglibles pale in comparison to talent in my mind when drafting a player. You sign hustle/glue guys. You draft the guy who has the most talent who can be a star. The great thing about this draft is there may be multiple players who could end up having a big impact.

I totally agree draft picks should all be about talent. But there are key talents other than iso scoring that every team needs. For my money, getting the best, most versatile defender, the best 3 point shooter, and the best shot intimidator are equally valuable to the best scorer. This is why I'd put Monk or possibly even Markkanen into the conversation for the 7 pick as the best 3 point shooters, that's why I'd consider trading down for Anunoby as the best, most versatile defender, and that's why I was kind of interested in Jeanne as a shot-blocker before the unfortunate diagnosis, and why Anigbogu and Zach Collins interest me a bit for the same reason. All three of those are crucial skills in the NBA, and they've become even more important in recent years, even as isolation and mid-range play has shrunk in importance.

Guys like Markkanen, Anunoby, Anigbogu, and Collins are definitely less likely to get voted to an All-Star game than Tatum (I do think Monk could potentially become an All Star), but I feel like the impact they could have could be as valuable as Tatum's, or even more valuable on a team like ours (with the exception of Makkanen though, who I think is going to get destroyed defensively, so he needs to end up on a great defensive team, which isn't us). Given our roster's makeup with LaVine, Wiggins and Towns already, I feel like we need versatile defense, 3 point shooting, and shot intimidation more than iso scoring, so I can see seriously considering getting the guy who can do one of those the best over the best scorer. I'm not saying draft for fit over talent. I'm saying defense, 3 point shooting, and shot-blocking are ALSO talents. And if somebody is as good at defense, as good at 3 point shooting, or as good at shot-blocking as Tatum is at iso scoring, then I'd consider them even.

It's kind of my hope, assuming Jackson is gone at 7 and Anunoby keeps dropping far enough on big boards, that we could trade down and get Anunoby plus a first rounder next year to make up for the loss of next year's pick!

In terms of drafting scorers and signing free agents to do the rest, I'm not sure it's that easy to sign guys who are very good in those three areas, especially these days. Likewise, scorers like Carmelo and Rudy Gay earned reputations over the years for not helping their teams despite their scoring, and the league is starting to recognize this. Today, very good scorers like Okafor and Kanter are almost definitely available because they don't help in other ways, and guys who used to be dismissed as role players are being recognized for the importance of their contributions.

Now that I've laid out the case for not automatically taking him if he's there at 7, watch Tatum become the next Paul Pierce or Paul George!

The problem with that argument is it doesn't always translate. Look at a guy like Stauskas or Jimmer. Elite shooters at the college level and it just didn't translate to the pros. Drafting a guy who is only "elite" at shooting like Markkanen is an extremely dangerous proposition if it just doesn't click out to the NBA 3 point line. Tatum can score and rebound. He's a very good rebounder for his size and he has the potential to be a good defender as well. Heck, Tatum grabbed more boards per game than Markkanen and Lauri has a big height advantage on him. He's not just an iso scorer. He's a good rebounder and dished out 2 assists a game as well. You say it's not a fit argument, but it just is when you consider Monk and Markkanen's shooting and OG's defense and whoever's shot blocking as equalizer's to a guy of Tatum's talent level because he's just a scorer. If those were true equalizer's those guys would be in the conversation in the top 5 like he is. Tatum does fit our team in the modern NBA after he adds some weight and plays small ball 4 for us. Meanwhile Lauri gets torched in that look, Monk may not even be on the court to end games and OG might be Aminu and can't give you almost any offense and makes you play 4 on 5 which becomes 3 on 5 with Ricky. To me that's focusing too much on fit trying to make them equalizer's to talent when talent usually wins out in this league. Tatum may not be a great fit now, but add a corner 3pt shot and play tough hard nosed defense under Thibs and he becomes a great fit with what we have and makes us a very difficult team to defend.

I'm saying if talent is equal, then yes, you should consider fit. And I'm suggesting we consider whether being the best player at something other than scoring can be considered equal talent to being the best scorer.

For years now, collective wisdom has said no, and lots of teams have chosen to take higher scorers while passing up versatile defenders like Kawhi and Draymond, shot-blockers like Gobert, 3 point shooters like Klay, and multi-skilled physical freaks like Giannis. There have been busts who were not primarily iso scorers coming out of college as well, of course, but there have also been busts who were prolific college scorers. The draft is much more about luck than people think; I just don't want to overlook a great player because I'm too focused on scoring.

But if it's worth considering skills other than scoring as equal to scoring, then I think it broadens the conversation and we should consider whether some of those guys, like Monk, Anunoby, and (*sigh* pre-diagnosis Jeanne) could be equal to Tatum because they are the best at what they do while also bringing some other strengths. I'm not saying take a role playing specialist (that's why I dismiss Markkanen, because we don't have the defenders to hide him on that end). I'm saying we shouldn't only consider scoring, especially iso midrange scoring.

I agree, Tatum is likely to improve his 3 point shooting--as I pointed out on the previous page, his great FT% is a good sign in that regard, and that's one of the best predictors of ability to shoot the NBA 3. I'm not trying to trash Tatum here, just to broaden the conversation about whether he'd be the best player for us to take.

Also, for what it's worth, while some people have OG low on their draft boards (like DX, which seems like the source of everything some people argue on this board at times), he's really high on others. Check out the guys at the Ringer, all of whom are really smart guys. Two of them have Anunoby ranked ahead of Tatum. So if your only point of reference is DX, sure, it seems crazy to project a guy pegged at 22 over a guy projected at 4 or 5. But it's better to consider multiple perspectives, and especially if we can trade way down and get Anunoby and pick up a future first in the process, that's a really good deal in my book.

https://nbadraft.theringer.com

60WinTim wrote:Me and Doper are basking in the sun, know that either Isaac or Monk should be on the board at #7...

https://www.aseaofblue.com/2017/6/18/15826320/new-malik-monk-highlights-ahead-of-nba-draft

Q12543 wrote:Monk's outbursts this past year were really impressive. The guy definitely has a Ben Gordon/Lou Williams vibe to his game. But that is a great 6th or 7th man, not a starting SG. And those guys are his ceiling, no? Unless he can play PG, I just don't see a best-case scenario that is better than either of those two guys.

monsterpile wrote:

Q12543 wrote:Monk's outbursts this past year were really impressive. The guy definitely has a Ben Gordon/Lou Williams vibe to his game. But that is a great 6th or 7th man, not a starting SG. And those guys are his ceiling, no? Unless he can play PG, I just don't see a best-case scenario that is better than either of those two guys.

I think what could be argued is that Monk has much deeper 3 point range than those guys had early in their NBA careers. If he can shoot the 3 well beyond the 3 point line with some consistency he could trend more towards being more than a 6 man.

This article discusses the possibility that Monk could be more than a Lou a Williams type. It was a good read Tim will love it. :)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theringer.com/amp/p/f074a0b238f0

monsterpile wrote:

Q12543 wrote:Monk's outbursts this past year were really impressive. The guy definitely has a Ben Gordon/Lou Williams vibe to his game. But that is a great 6th or 7th man, not a starting SG. And those guys are his ceiling, no? Unless he can play PG, I just don't see a best-case scenario that is better than either of those two guys.

I think what could be argued is that Monk has much deeper 3 point range than those guys had early in their NBA careers. If he can shoot the 3 well beyond the 3 point line with some consistency he could trend more towards being more than a 6 man.

This article discusses the possibility that Monk could be more than a Lou a Williams type. It was a good read Tim will love it. :)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theringer.com/amp/p/f074a0b238f0

Q12543 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

Q12543 wrote:Monk's outbursts this past year were really impressive. The guy definitely has a Ben Gordon/Lou Williams vibe to his game. But that is a great 6th or 7th man, not a starting SG. And those guys are his ceiling, no? Unless he can play PG, I just don't see a best-case scenario that is better than either of those two guys.

I think what could be argued is that Monk has much deeper 3 point range than those guys had early in their NBA careers. If he can shoot the 3 well beyond the 3 point line with some consistency he could trend more towards being more than a 6 man.

This article discusses the possibility that Monk could be more than a Lou a Williams type. It was a good read Tim will love it. :)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theringer.com/amp/p/f074a0b238f0

He's also at least two inches shorter than Booker. There simply aren't that many good starting SGs in league history at that height.

I do agree these Kentucky guys often show more skill in the NBA than we realized they had in college. With Monk, it might be his play making ability that got short-changed....I don't know. We know that typically it's some offensive skill that didn't fully get utilized....it's almost never, "my goodness! This guy is a way better defender than I thought!".

60WinTim wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

Q12543 wrote:Monk's outbursts this past year were really impressive. The guy definitely has a Ben Gordon/Lou Williams vibe to his game. But that is a great 6th or 7th man, not a starting SG. And those guys are his ceiling, no? Unless he can play PG, I just don't see a best-case scenario that is better than either of those two guys.

I think what could be argued is that Monk has much deeper 3 point range than those guys had early in their NBA careers. If he can shoot the 3 well beyond the 3 point line with some consistency he could trend more towards being more than a 6 man.

This article discusses the possibility that Monk could be more than a Lou a Williams type. It was a good read Tim will love it. :)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theringer.com/amp/p/f074a0b238f0

He's also at least two inches shorter than Booker. There simply aren't that many good starting SGs in league history at that height.

I do agree these Kentucky guys often show more skill in the NBA than we realized they had in college. With Monk, it might be his play making ability that got short-changed....I don't know. We know that typically it's some offensive skill that didn't fully get utilized....it's almost never, "my goodness! This guy is a way better defender than I thought!".

I know you don't put much stock in verticals. But Monk has a good wing span for his size and none of these guys -- Booker, Jamal Murray, Gary Harris, McCollum, Lou Williams, etc -- come close to having the vertical Monk has, which helps make up for some of that head-to-toe length you are worried about. The guy has athleticism to go along with his terrific shooting. I think he can develop into a starting SG. And the idea of having that kind of shooting coming off the bench behind Zach, and maybe even along side Zach, gets me kind of excited...